Book Review: Treacherous
Alliance – the secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United
States By Trita Parsi. Yale University Press, New Haven. 2007

As
the prospects of a limited ‘strike’ or a full out attack
on Iran become more and more familiar in the media, and as the end date
for the Bush-Cheney regime in the United States draws ever nearer to
its close, a better understanding of the tripartite relationship between
Iran, Israel, and the U.S. requires a strong presentation of the underlying
so far verbal conflict between the three governments. Trita Parsi succeeds
in this goal in Treacherous Alliance, in which he discusses the relationship
between the three. There are two main overlapping views that Parsi uses
within this examination: first, that of the difference between the public
rhetoric (ideology) and the often secret governmental discussions and
deals between the three (geostrategy); secondly, he accounts for the
many flips in the geostrategy views depending on the perceptions and
needs of a particular moment in time. In sum, it is about the conflicting
views of ideology and geostrategy, with the prime mover of events being
geostrategy, not ideology in its many manifestations (religion, rhetoric,
‘clash of civilizations’).

Within the political triad,
the main role falls upon the relationships between Iran and Israel,
with Israel mainly operating under a “doctrine of the periphery”
and Iran operating under the view of maintaining or strengthening (dependent
on the era) its “natural” hegemony over its nearby neighbours.
The United States arrives as a mainly dishonest broker, manipulating
and being manipulated as it strives towards its own changing goals,
from its overblown opposition to the communist menace, through its muddled
behaviour after the Soviet collapse, into today’s even more muddled
“war on terror.”

Parsi provides an excellent
summary of his work in the final chapter (as all well written arguments
should) and then proffers suggestions for possible solutions (other
than the apparent Bush-Cheney goal of some form of pre-emptive attack).
He concludes “Washington has sought to establish an order that
contradicts the natural balance by seeking to contain and isolate Iran”
and follows with his well-developed arguments that “The major
transformation of Israeli-Iranian relations have all coincided with
geopolitical rather than ideological shifts.” Contrary to many
perspectives on political Islam, “ideology is not an absolute
for the rulers of Tehran,” although the public rhetoric would
make it seem otherwise. While not part of the subject of this book,
that same view can be considered for the Palestinian Hamas, and the
Lebanese Hezbollah, both ideologically partnered with Iran to a degree
– practicality over-rules rhetoric. The argument concludes, “no
force in Iran’s foreign policy is as dominant as geopolitical
considerations.”

While it may seem tiringly
redundant when foreshortened into a review format, Parsi effectively
reiterates the ideology/geostrategy idea throughout his work through
strong examples and many quotes from sources that were or are involved
in the apparent and real conflicts of the triad. Another note emphasizes
the constraints of geostrategy over ideology as “Neither the honor
of Islam nor the suffering of the Palestinian people figured in the
deliberations.” Although the Israeli-Palestine question “touches
everyone…in a profoundly emotional way, it is not a conflict that
sets the geopolitical balance.” As is true with the majority of
government to government disputes, the people at times hardly seem to
matter, whether it is the beliefs and rights of one’s own people
or the humanitarian rights of other people or the rights of all people
as provided for by the UN charter and many conventions that the vast
majority of countries have signed on to. It is mainly an argument between
those in power wishing to retain their power, using the rhetoric and
patriotic hubris and jingoism to keep their own masses in line as much
as possible. Interestingly enough, while Bush-Cheney are dismally low
in American polls, they and the media have managed to establish the
idea that an attack on Iran is both feasible and good. Rhetoric has
trumped strategy, at least in the opinion polls.

And that returns me from
my mini-editorial to Parsi’s work as he sees the current situation
in a similar way. The American administration has a “divorced-from-reality
outlook [characterizing] the Bush administration’s approach to
the Middle East since September 11.” Parsi describes as “fantasy”
the American belief that with regime change “the problems between
the United States and Iran as well as Israel and Iran, would more or
less automatically be resolved,” a “dubious conclusion,”
as “there is little to suggest that a secular Iran [as compared
to the Ayatollahs] would be less inclined to seek pre-eminence and more
prone to accept a timid role in regional affairs.” That again
is another way of saying that for Iran – pardon the repetition
- strategy is more important than ideology.

Iran is viewed as a rational
actor in all this in spite of the rhetoric. The evidence Parsi works
through strongly supports this rationality as “Iran has acted
with greater savvy and caution than have many of Israel’s traditional
foes” and that “may also be the reason why thus far it has
not shared chemical or biological weapons with any of its Arab proxies
[Hezbollah]…and why a nuclear Iran likely would not share nuclear
weapons with terrorist groups,” (look to an increasingly volatile
Pakistan for that scary possibility).

As for Israel, they fear
a nuclear Iran, even if with only the capability of building the weapons,
as it would “significantly damage Israel’s ability to deter
militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations,” mainly through
destroying the myth of Israeli invincibility. While the argument was
made that the Palestinians do not affect the geopolitical balance, the
Lebanon war of 2006 strengthened Iran through its Hezbollah proxy, and
it also weakened Iran’s Arab rivals. Israel, as always, retains
the myth of its vulnerability to Arab attack at home and within America
and Europe, and at the same time balances it within its own mid-east
geopolitical sphere with its unstated threat of nuclear annihilation
for any transgression against its claims to Eretz Israel.

Israel of course has a partner
in all this, the United States. The Israelis have, mainly through the
actions of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), manipulated
the U.S. government, the Senate and the House of Representatives (collectively
the Congress), into providing full support for all recent Israeli objectives,
whether it be the acceptance of the ongoing illegal settlements internally,
or its foreign adventures in Lebanon and its desire to pre-emptively
eliminate even the remote chance of Iran having nuclear weapons. In
a subsection titled “AIPAC – The King of Lobbies”,
Parsi indicates that as early as 1994 “Washington started to adopt
the Israeli line on Iran. In response to Israeli pressure – and
not to Iranian actions – Washington’s rhetoric on Iran began
to mirror Israel’s talking points.” A Clinton era White
House worker, Ken Pollack alleges, “Washington’s recycling
of Israel’s argument back to Tel Aviv reflected the success of
Rabin and Perez’s campaign against Iran…[the] turnaround
was a direct result of Israel’s pressure.” This argument
is not fully developed as in Mearsheimer and Walt, but it is recognized
that the “alliance between AIPAC and evangelical Christian Republicans
on Capital Hill turned out to be particularly helpful….”
The lobby - described as efficient, sophisticated, and ruthless - the
Christian evangelical right, and the political neoconservatives formed
a powerful expression of anti-Iranian views in Washington. No group
in Congress – Democrat or Republican - is able to do anything
without encountering the financial and media weight of AIPAC, nor can
they be elected without undergoing the scrutiny and manipulations of
the group.

The current situation has
been long in developing. It is a history of deceit, conceit, rhetoric,
back room dealings, back room stabbings (figuratively), and treachery.
Each side has at one time or another played off one side against the
other, switching tactics and rhetoric as the geostrategic interests
shifted. Included in Parsi’s story are excursions around the Middle
East, mainly into Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and on the other side into
Pakistan and Afghanistan, outlining the various relationships with the
Taliban and other political groups. It is not a story of humanitarian
principles, but of the greed and hunger for power and dominance at the
governmental level. Iran - although as culpable in its manipulations
as are the others – appears to my reading as truly being the most
rational of the triad in spite of the current rhetoric captured so well
by the western media.

For those unversed in Iranian-Israeli
affairs – other than perhaps the hysterical rhetoric on nuclear
weapons and the carefully crafted ‘history’ of the 1979
hostage taking - Trita Parsi provides a well-documented, easily readable,
and at times captivating story of this “Treacherous Alliance.”
With nuclear armed Pakistan on the boil, with neighbouring Afghanistan
becoming more and more susceptible to Taliban and other warlord tactics,
with Iraq superficially calmer as the Sunnis and Shias have cleansed
themselves of each other but not the occupation, with Turkey knocking
on the Kurdish back door, with Hezbollah demonstrating military readiness
in recent war ‘games’, with the Horn of Africa now embroiled
in more “terror wars”, this work should be on the ‘to
read’ list as the U.S.- Israeli partnership threatens further
instability throughout the region. Even though rhetoric appears to have
trumped geostrategy (and plain common sense) within U.S. and Israeli
political circles, the reader can only hope that the previous secret
intrigues are still continuing out of sight in order to avoid what could
become the greatest of all ‘unexpected outcomes’ for the
Middle East and the world.

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist
of opinion pieces and book reviews to Palestine Chronicles. His interest
in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which
encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the global
community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the
American government. Miles’ work is also presented globally through
other alternative websites and news publications.

Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.